Obama Wants Everyone To Be Really Nice To Susan Rice – Updated

At his first press conference in eight months President Obama mostly got softball questions from the press. I don’t know what happened, but when I turned on the TV it was on ABC and Diane Sawyer was gushing over (paraphrasing) Obama giving “his first press conference since he won the election by 3 million votes.” What was that for? Anyway, he opened with the typical drivel we’ve become so accustomed to. You know, calling for compromise when he has doubled down on tax hikes and talking about holding the middle class hostage.

One of the questions was about Benghazi and the possibility of him nominating Susan Rice to be Secretary of State.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn’t trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I’d like your reaction to that. And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I’m not going to comment at this point on various nominations that I’ll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed.

But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.

Nice Deb wonders (video at the link) why nobody followed up with the question “Okay, then, who in your administration supplied her with the bogus intelligence?” Another one would be “If she had nothing to do with Benghazi, why did you trot her out on the Sunday after the attack to do a round of interviews? Wasn’t she acting as the voice of your administration?” Then he snorted something about the election being over, as if he should no longer be held accountable for anything.

The funniest part of the presser was when Obama said he wants to sit down with Mitt Romney – the man he demonized for months – who he says had some good ideas. Romney ought to tell him to bug off. He won’t listen to anything Romney would have to say, so why become part of his side show?

Update: As far as whether Obama should have been informed that his CIA Director was having an affair, he said he’s withholding judgment. Way to be dodge another question.

This is the moral lesson that Obama is teaching your children: Successful liars deserve to be praised and rewarded. Obama keeps saying that he’s going to “get to the bottom of it,” as if his own failures were not at “the bottom of it.”

“Romney ought to tell him to bug off. He won’t listen to anything Romney would have to say, so why become part of his side show?”

That’s exactly what Romney did today, and blamed the Obamee Coalition of the Takers to boot. This is something we need to hear more of, how tens of millions of Americans *will* lose their employer-based health insurance in the next year, not to mention their full-time employment status, thanks to the people who voted in this election.

Obama will use his second term driving up the national debt, appointing corrupt politicians to office, and blaming Bush for his self-generated fiscal cliff. Additionally, his team will spin Benghazi as yet another event that the president knew nothing about!

Here’s my question for the president: As our nation’s chief executive you claim to be unaware of the most important and tragic situations we’re facing; so, as a former chief executive, I’d like to know how long it takes for your staff to tell you things like: “Sir, your CIA Director is under investigation”?

Mitt should never have contact with Obama again. All Dear Leader is looking for is someone to point the finger at when the economy accelerates its downhill slide. I can hear him now, exclaiming that he took Mitt’s advice and “you can see how that’s working out”, or something even more vapid that his cult will swallow without question when everything goes south.

a) be nice to Rice. How about “no”?
b) Romney should let him figure out his own plan.
c) I’m sure he’s withholding judgement so as not to appear to be “taking sides”.
d) He is a complete loser who was never invited to be part of any team in school and that’s who he’s always gonna be.

Subscribe Via Email

Grabien Headlines

Review this blog

Histats

Secure Your Website

Archives

Today’s News

Links are updated every hour. The Resurgent Some Guys Asked People to Rate News Sites. You Won’t Believe What Happened Next!9 December 2016, 1:00 pmThere has been a lot of hubbub over fake news lately. The elevation of Breitbart’s Steve…